S V MOTWANI Vs. COLLECTOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Shri S.V.Motwani has arisen in the following circumstances. The petitioner, S.V. Motwani was in the service of Central Government in the Ministry of works. Housing and Supply from 1942 to 1964. On 1st August, 1954, the petitioner was allotted a portion of requisitioned house No. 3 Maharjah Lane Delhi, while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer, Delhi, State Division No. 1.C.P.W.D., New Delhi, under the control of the Delhi Administration in 1959 the petitioner was transferred from the control of the Delhi Administration. On 14th September, 1959, the Delhi Administration vide letter dated 14th September, 1959, copy of which is Annexure R-1, required the petitioner to vacate the requisitioned premises No. 3, Maharajah Lane, within two months, on the ground that he had been transferred from the Delhi Administration and in accordance with the standing instructions of the Administration any person transferred from the Delhi Administration is not entitled to retain residential accommodation of the Administration. The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi Administration initiated proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, herein- after referred to as the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi against the eviction proceedings, but his appeal was dismissed on 21st April, 1961. The petitioner vacated the premises, 3 Maharajah Lane. in May, 1961. On 24th November, 1966, the Delhi Administration served a notice on the peti. tioner requirirg him to pay a sum of Rs 1310.05 p. being the difference in the rent which was paid by him and the rent which he was liable to pay under the Fundamental Rule 45-B. The petitioner was told that for the period he was in unauthorised occupation of the premises, he was liable to pay standard rent plus 3% of the departmental charges under Fundamental Rule 45-B. The petitioner represented to the Delhi Administration against this demand. The petitioner in his representation steted that he had already paid rent at 10% of his monthly salary and the additional demand of Rs 1310.05 made by the Department was not legal. This representation of the petitioner was rejected and he was required to pay the sum of Rs. 1310.05 within a fortnight. This amount was not paid by the petitioner and the amount was sought to be recovered from the petitioner through the Collector at Mathura as arrears of 1and Revenue.

(2.) . The case of the petitioner is that there is no order under section 7 of the Act, for the recovery of Rs. 1310.05 and the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue is illegal and without jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this petition must succeed. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner was allotted the requisitioned house No. 3, Maharajah Lane. The allotment of the said house in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Delhi Admisiraiion vide its letter dated 14th September, 1959. The petitiner was required to vacate the premises within two months failing which the petitioner was told proceedirgs for his eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, would be initiated. The petitioner did not vacate the premises within the time allowed and the Delhi A.d- ministration obtained orders for eviction of the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner vacated the premises in or about May, 1961. In 1966, the respondents required the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1310.05 representing difference in the rent which was paid by him and which he was liable to pay under the Fandamantal Rule 45-B. The case of the respondents is that on failure of the petitioner to vacate the premises, after his allotment was cancelled, he became an unauthorised occupant and was to be treated as a private individual for the purposes of recovery of rent and under F.R. 45-B was liabls to pay stan lard rent along with 3% of the departmental charges. The case of the petitioner. on the other hand, is that he had paid rent at 10/o of his salary and the demand made by the Administration is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that no show cause notice was served on him under the Act, and the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue is without jurisdiction. It is not dispuled by the counsel for the respondent that no order under section 7 of the Act has been passed against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 1310.05 as arrears of rent or damages. Section 14 of the Act provides that. if any person refuses or fails to pay arrears of rent payable uader sub-section (1) of section 7 or the damages payable under sub-section (2) within the lime specided in the order relating thereto, the Estate Officer may issue a certificate for the amount due to the Collector who shall proceed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. Fhere can be no doubt that in the absence of an order under section 7 for the recovery of rent the Collector cannot proceed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenus. That being so, I am of the view that the respondents cannot recover the amount in question as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. The proceedings taken by the respondents for the recovery of the amount of Rs 1310.05 as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner are wholly without jurisdiction and must be quashed.

(3.) . There is another aspect of the case also. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner is liable to pay standard rent along with 3% Departmental charges under Fundamental Rule 45-B. plausee (4) of Fundamental Rule 45-B provides that when Government supplies a Government servant with a residence leased or requisitioned or owned by Government, the conditions specified therein sball be observed. Sub-clause (b) of clause (4) provides that unless otherwise provided the rent chargeable for such residence shall be the standard rent as defined in clause (3) or 10% of his monthly emoluments, whichever is less. The bungalow No. 3, Maharajah Lane was a requisitioned house and it was allotted to the petitioner by the Government According to sub-clause (b), the petitioner was liable to pay 10% of his monthly emoluments as rent. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been paying the rent at 10% of his monthly emoluments. Sub-clause (e) of clause (4) provides: